Bermuda Knitwear Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 9, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 332 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bermuda Knitwear Corporation and Abraham J. Lubasch and Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, District 65. Case No. 9d-CA-5046. April 9,1958 DECISION AND ORDER On July 10, 1957, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report with supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members, Bean and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications in the remedy indicated below.' We find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the Respondents, in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act, discriminatorily dis- charged the shipping and office clerical employees listed in Appendix- A of the Intermediate Report and moved their shipping department to Saugerties, New York, solely as a pretext for such discharges. To remedy this discrimination, we shall order the Respondents to offer these employees full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, wherever located, without preju- dice to their seniority or other rights and privileges, replacing, if necessary, any employee or person hired or used by the Respondents since August 17, 1956, to perform the services previously performed by the discriminatees.2 Where such positions have been transferred to locations outside New York City, and are accepted by the discrim- inatees,-the Respondents shall be required to pay such employees the expenses entailed in traveling and moving their families and house- ' We note that, on numerous occasions , the Trial Examiner inadvertently refers to Respondents ' 1410 Broadway , New York, address as "1810" Broadway. 2 We agree with the General Counsel that such persons shall include accountants, independent contractors , friends, relatives , or other persons used or hired by the Re- spondents to perform the services previously performed by the employees discriminatorily discharged. 120 NLRB No. 59. BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 333 hold effects to such locations. Contrary to the Trial Examiner's rec- ommendation, an offer of reinstatement as herein required shall be considered compliance with our Order, subject, however, to the quali- fication hereinafter provided. The Respondents shall also be required to make whole all employ- ees listed in Appendix A of the Intermediate Report by paying each of them a sum of money equal to the amount he or she would nor- mally have earned as wages, including pension payments, from Au- gust 17, 1956, until the offer of reinstatement, less his or her interim earnings during such period. The General Counsel urges, in effect, that in determining the appro- priate remedy, the Board should consider that the Respondents re- moved their shipping operations to Saugerties, New York, merely as a temporary measure and that they intended to resume operations in New York City as soon as the threat of unionization disappeared. Like the Trial Examiner, we find it unnecessary to determine the Respondents' intentions at this time. However, if the Respondents resumes shipping operations in New York City or ' vicinity, the Re- spondents shall be required to give preference in employment to the discriminatees before any other employee is hired, without prejudice to their former seniority and other rights and privileges.' We also expressly reserve the right to modify the back-pay and reinstatement provisions if made necessary by a change of conditions in the future, and to make such supplements thereto as may hereafter become necessary in order to define or clarify their application to a specific set of circumstances not now apparent .4 ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondents Abraham J. Lubasch and Bermuda Knitwear Corporation, New York, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Discouraging membership in Retail, Wholesale and Depart- ment Store Union, AFL-CIO, District 65, or in any other labor or- ganization of their employees, by discriminatorily discharging em- ployees, or in any other manner discriminating against them in regard 8 Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc., 108 NLRB 1369, 1371. Such an offer shall also be made to any employee who accepted the Respondents' offer of reemployment out- side New York City. If such employees accept the offer to return to New York City, the Respondents shall, in addition, be required to reimburse them for expenses incurred in traveling and moving their families and household effects back to New York City, 4 Cf. N. L. If. B v. New York Merchandise Company, 134 F. 2d 949 (C A 2) : Mine Workers v. Eagle-Picher Mining and Smelting Co., et al, 325 U. S. 335 334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to their hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. (b) Threatening employees with discharge or other reprisals be- cause of union activities. (c) Promising to grant and granting wage increases for the pur- pose of inducing employees to refrain from union activities. (d) Interrogating employees concerning union membership and activities in a manner constituting interference, restraint, or coercion, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. (e) In any other manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing their employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organizations , to join or assist the aforementioned District 65 or any other labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Offer the employees listed in Appendix A of the Intermediate Report immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substan- tially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, together with an offer of necessary traveling and moving expenses where offers of reinstate- ment are made to positions moved outside New York City. In the event that the Respondents relocate their previously removed shipping operations in New York City or vicinity, they shall give the employees listed in Appendix A of the Intermediate Report preference in em- ployment in their former or substantially equivalent positions before any other employees are hired, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole all employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the discrimination against them , in the manner set forth in the Intermediate Report in the section entitled "The Remedy," as modified by the Board's order herein. (c) Preserve and make available to the Board or its agents upon request, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social- security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts of back pay due and the rights of employment under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at their premises at 1410 Broadway, New York City, Saugerties, New York, Tannersville, New York, and Hoboken, New Jersey, copies of the notice attached to the Intermediate Report and BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 335 marked "Appendix B." 5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region shall, after being duly signed by Abraham J. Lubasch, individually and in his representative capacity for the Respondent Bermuda Knitwear Corporation, be posted by the Respondents for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respond- ents to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Re- spondents have taken to comply herewith. 5 This notice shall be amended by substituting for the words "The Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" in the caption thereof the words "A Decision and Order" In the event this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the notice shall be further amended by substituting for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order," the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforc- ing an Order." INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges and amended charges filed by Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, District 65, a labor organization herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint dated October 9, 1956, against Bermuda Knitwear Corporation and Abraham J. Lubasch, herein collectively called Respondent, alleging that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the charges and complaint were duly served upon Respondent, in response to which Respondent filed an answer denying the unfair labor practices alleged. ' Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at New York City before the duly desig- nated Trial Examiner, beginning on December 10, 1956, and concluding on February 13, 1957. All parties were represented by counsel and were given full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues; they were also given opportunity for oral argument and to submit briefs, as well. Upon the entire record in the case, and upon observation of the demeanor of wit- nesses, I make the-following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent Bermuda is a New York corporation with its principal office in New York City; it engages in the sale and distribution of women 's knitwear and related products . Respondent A. J. Lubasch is Bermuda 's president and the owner of sub- stantially all its capital stock and he is in charge of its labor relations . During the past year Respondent Bermuda made interstate purchases and sales exceeding a value of $500,000 and $2 ,000,000, respectively. I find that Respondent Bermuda is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES At least until August 17, 1956, Respondent maintained its principal office, show- rooms, stockroom , and shipping operations at 1410 Broadway , New York City. Respondent discharged 26 employees ,' mostly shipping and office personnel , at these ' These employees are set forth on Appendix A hereof. The complaint was amended at the hearing to include all these employees as having been discriminatorily discharged 336 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD New York City operations on August 17, and the General Counsel alleges that such terminations were discriminatory. Respondent denies such discriminatory motiva- tion and contends, instead, that the discharges were incidental to a transfer of some of its operations to Saugerties, New York, which transfer Respondent asserts to have been made for economic reasons unrelated to union membership or other labor organizational activities of its employees. These discharges constitute the principal issue in this proceeding. It may be helpful, at the outset, to described Respondent's operations before the August 1956 discharges under consideration. In 1934 Respondent began operations in a loft building at 1410 Broadway, located in the center of the knit goods industry in New York City; this building, according to Respondent Lubasch, is the leading knitwear building in New York City. Respondent expanded its business over the years and gradually acquired additional space; by 1942 Respondent was occupying the entire 22d floor of the building at 1410 Broadway. Respondent has also been renting additional space in the area of 1410 Broadway since 1953; it has used public and other warehousing facilities and in February 1956 it acquired a year's sublease on basement premises at 1410 Broadway. Respondent has not engaged in any manufacturing operations at 1410 Broadway. Rather, it contracts out its work. Respondent's principal contractors are, apparently, a firm entitled Class Knit Co., Inc., located in New York City and a Puerto Rican concern owned by Respondent Lubasch and named Yauco Knitting Mills, Inc. Yauco Knitting Mills has approximately 150 employees and produces solely for Respondent. That Respondent is a substantial enterprise is indicated by the afore- stated commerce data; it has a mailing list of 9,000 names and has approximately 3,000 active accounts throughout the United States. As already stated, Respondent's operations were centered, as of August 1956, at 1410 Broadway. Here were located its principal office and showroom ( it also has a subsidiary west coast showroom) and its stockroom with shipping and receiving departments. Respondent received all merchandise, in bulk, from its contractors and its Puerto Rico plant at 1410 Broad- way 2 where the merchandise was stored, packaged, and boxed and then shipped to customers, by railway express, parcel post, airfreight, or motortruck. Respondent has traveling salesmen, with territories throughout the country, who report at 1410 Broadway; Respondent also had been selling a substantial amount of merchandise to customers who went to 1810 Broadway and selected their purchases directly from stock. Respondent's business has a spring and fall season , the fall shipping -season running from June through November; the busiest portion of the fall shipping season is from July through September and August, when the discharges in question occurred, is the peak of that season. Respondent had approximately 36 employees at 1410 Broadway, including about 12 shipping employees and about 15 office and clerical employees. The shipping and stockroom employees performed the usual functions of those classifications, such as boxing, packaging, storing, etc. The office and other functions at 1410 Broadway included the operations normally attending a business of Respondent' s size in this industry, such as bookkeeping and usual office procedures, credit investigation, inven- tory control, secretarial, switchboard and reception operations, salesroom, production control, advertising, designing, modeling, etc. Respondent A. J. Lubasch is president and in active control of Bermuda's opera- tions. Among Bermuda's other top executives and supervisors located at 1410 Broad- way before the discharges were General Sales Manager Maxwell Saslow, Production Manager Jack Lubasch (Respondent Lubasch's cousin), Comptroller Simon Mael, Divisional Sales Manager Edward Lipschultz, Advertising Manager Max Besehloss, and Shipping Foreman Reinhard Holdstein. August 1956 was, as already stated, the peak of Respondent' s fall season ; orders were very heavy at the time and the entire shipping department had been working overtime during the week ending August 10. Nevertheless, on August 17, Respond- ent dismembered its entire staff at 1810 Broadway except for management and super- visory personnel and two rank-and-file employees.3 I shall now relate the evidence as to union organizational activities which, according to the General Counsel, demon- strates Respondent's motivation for the discharges. 2 The record indicates that only one item, skirts, was shipped directly from contractor to customer. 3 Belle Somer, a showroom sales representative, and Helen Kupcyk, an assistant to Foreman Holdstein. BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 337 Advent of Union Activities in 1956 Beginning in or about April 1956, the Union undertook to organize Respond- ent's employees at 1410 Broadway . Union Organizer Al Dicker met fairly frequently with employees in front of the building at 1810 Broadway and in nearby restaurants; early in May , Dicker began meeting with employees at the union offices, and he continued to meet each month through August 1956 with some of them. Union activities were, meanwhile , a subject of employees ' discussions at Respondent's premises , and General Sales Manager Saslow testified in effect that such activities were common knowledge. In June 1956, after the Union 's organizational campaign had begun , Respond- ent gave wage increases to 9 of its 12 4 shipping employees . This was a departure from Respondent 's normal practice of giving raises only on an individual basis. Ivan Rocke had been working in the shipping department under Foreman Reinhard Holdstein for about 5 years, and it was Holdstem who had hired Rocke. Shortly after the Union began its organizing activities , Holdstein asked Rocke , according to Rocke's credible testimony , "What's this about a union ?" thus referring to the Union contacting employees off the premises , and Holdstein told Rocke that "it is the same thing over and over again . Nothing will come of it , because the union was trying to get in the shop and organize the shop previously ." About a week before Rocke and the other shipping employees received their wage increase in June 1956, Holdstein , with a list in his hand, went to the shipping employees and told them separately , according to Rocke's testimony , that "we are going to get a raise. We are going to be taken care of." Holdstein asked Rocke on such occasion , "what's this about union talk again ?" and he again told Rocke that he had heard about the Union 's organizational efforts and that "nothing [is ] going to come of it as usual" and that Rocke could expect a wage increase . Felipe Cubas was another employee under Holdstein in the shipping department who had been hired by Holdstein in or about 1951 . Cubas' last wage increase before June 1956 was in 1953 . Calling Cubas aside shortly before Cubas received his June 1956 increase , Holdstein told Cubas that he had heard "something about the union" and he asked Cubas "what was it that was going on?" Holdstein then told Cubas , "We would like to do something for everybody here," and he informed Cubas a few days later that he, Holdstein, had obtained an increase for Cubas . Alfred Salwitz , who had been hired by Holdstein 5 years before , was transferred in May 1956 from the shipping department under Holdstein to the office to assist Production Manager Jack Lubasch . Twice in May, the second time being the occasion of Salwitz ' transfer to the office , Holdstein inquired what Salwitz knew of the employees ' union activities and which employees had joined . Salwitz said he did not know. Holdstein also told Salwitz it would be a "very bad thing" for the employees to join the Union because , Holdstein told Salwitz, Lubasch would never "tolerate" a union and "would close down the place." Salwitz received a wage increase on the occasion of Holdstein 's second conversation with him, the same day Salwitz transferred to office work ; this was Salwitz' first increase in 21/2 years. In July or August 1956, Holdstein asked employee Anglisano , "What's going on here with the union?"; and early in August Holdstein told Anglisano that he, Hold- stein, knew the names of some employee members of the Union and that "Lubasch don't want no union in his shop. If the union is in , Lubasch will close his shop and move to Puerto Rico." On or about August 9, 1956, Union Organizers Al Dicker and Abe Cohen visited Respondent 's office at 1410 Broadway . They introduced themselves to Josephine Keating, the receptionist and switchboard operator , and asked to see Respondent Lubasch. Lubasch was out at the time and Keating advised Dicker and Cohen that Lubasch was expected to return by 2:30 that afternoon . Dicker and Cohen gave Keating their calling card describing their union affiliation , and they left the premises . Dicker and Cohen returned to Respondent 's premises that afternoon, to be informed by Keating that Lubasch was out of town and that she did not know when he would return. Within the next few days, according to Keating's credible testimony, Keating advised Lubasch by telephone of various callers and other busi- ness matters , including the fact that Dicker and Cohen had been in to see him; and 4 Of the 3 shipping employees who did not receive an increase at the time, Kupcylr was 1 of 2 rank-and-file employees not discharged on August 17; the second, Lowe, was scheduled to receive a monthly pension in July 1956; and the third, Anglisano, was a handyman and had received a wage increase in May 1956. 483142-59-vol 120-23 338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD Keating also read to Lubasch the union business card left by Dicker and Cohen.5 This card, as mentioned above, stated the Union's name and local number. On August 10, shortly after Dicker's and Cohen's visit to Respondent's office, as related above, Respondent began transferring substantial quantities of mer- chandise from 1810 Broadway to a building owned by Lubasch in Tannersville, New York, and employee Salwitz estimated that three-fourths of Respondent's stock was removed from 1810 Broadway between August 10 and 13. Also, begin- ning on August 10, no more merchandise from Respondent's contractors was delivered by, or received from, Respondent's contractors at 1810 Broadway; on that day under instructions from Respondent one of Respondent's principal con- tractors (Class Knit) began shipping merchandise to Lubasch's Tannersville build- ing. The week of August 13, Respondent had its shipping employees take an inventory of its remaining merchandise at 1810 Broadway. The employees were concerned about this turn of events, particularly at the peak of Respondent's fall season, and they discussed the situation among themselves. That same week of August 13, employees also observed frequent meetings being held by company executives. - During this same week of August 13, Respondent's bookkeeper, Lillian Harlick, asked Production Manager Jack Lubasch what was happening. Lubasch replied that "it seems that some of the boys in the back [referring to shipping and receiving room] signed up with the union and [Respondent Lubasch] is against it" and that Respondent Lubasch "was stubborn and wouldn't tolerate a union." That same week, another office employee, Mildred Singer, made a similar inquiry of Divisional Sales Manager Lipschultz Lipschultz replied that "there was some talk about the boys joining the union," but that Singer herself should not be concerned about it as it "had nothing to do" with her. Also, during this period, Foreman Holdstein asked shipping employee Ivan Rocke, "What's the talk about a union again?" And Holdstein then told Rocke, according to Rocke's credible testimony, that "This time he is fed up . with the whole thing, and whatever happens, happens." Also, during this period, while employees were shipping merchandise to Tannersville, as mentioned above, shipping employee Cubas remarked to Hold- stein that it is a long way to go to work in Tannersville. Holdstein thereupon told Cubas that "they haven't got anything set up there yet. All they have there is the merchandise " Holdstein further stated on this occasion that "you should know your boss [Lubasch] better than that. He [-Lubasch] would never stand for a union." On Thursday morning, August 16, Sales Manager Maxwell Saslow, Production Manager Jack Lubasch. and Comptroller Simon Mael called together and conducted two meetings in the shipping department, first with the women employees of that department and then with the men. Saslow addressed both groups in the presence of Mael and Lubasch. Employee Sylvia Maldonado credibly testified that Saslow stated at the first meeting that "he [Saslow] was up all night in Tannersville, talk- ing to the boss [Lubasch] and trying to convince the boss not to go out of business and that there was no progress because . [Lubasch] made up his mind that he was going to close up because, anyway, he was losing money in the business and he was practically giving the stock for close-out prices. He [Saslow] says, what do we want from him [Lubasch]. We have just as much benefit from him 5 Lubasch denied that Keating had ever infoi med him of the union organizers' visit to 1410 Broadway ; he testified on direct examination that his first knowledge of the Union's organizing attempts was on "August 22nd" (after the discharges) when, according to Lubasch, Cohen left his calling card at Lubasch's summer home in Tannersville, New York. On cross-examination, Lubasch testified that he did not know whether the alleged Tannersville calling card incident occurred before or after the discharges, except that "it was about the same time" , then Lubasch went on to testify that he did not recall whether the alleged Tannersville calling card incident did occur on August 22, as previously testi- fied, and then, when Lubasch was asked whether "You don't remember whether it was before or after the people were fired'1" lie replied, "No, I don't remember when it was. I think it was after. It was after we had discharged them I do remember that." This is but one example of the character of Lubasch's testimony throughout the proceeding. Not only did his demeanor as a witness convince me that Lubasch was deliberately evasive and untruthful, but his testimony as a whole reveals many self-contradictions and im- plausibilities in addition to conflicts with other Respondent witnesses in material respects Lubasch's evasiveness and untruthfulness so permeates his entire testimony that I am impelled to find him unworthy of belief as to any critical matters in this case. BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 339 [Lubasch] as with the union, and we was treated like a small family. Anything he could do for us, he would be glad to do it, and that if anyone of us wants to join the union, he [Saslow] will give us the blessing." Saslow then told the male employees at the meeting with them, according to the credible testimony of Salwitz and Cubas, that he (Saslow), Mael, and Jack Lubasch had just returned from a meeting with Respondent Lubasch at Tannersville and that the three men had "pleaded" for their own jobs with Lubasch. Saslow told the assembled employees that they could obtain other employment much more easily than Saslow, Mael, and Jack Lubasch could and that he, Saslow, wanted to discuss the matter man-to-man with the employees so that they might "settle" the matter "between ourselves . . . without help from the outside," referring to the "Union." "in case we cannot settle it here," Saslow further stated, "Mr. Lubasch will close the place." Saslow also informed the group that Lubasch had said that they had all joined the Union.6 "That is good for you, God bless you," Saslow told the employees, "but as for him LLubasch] he doesn't want no union." "fell me what you want," Saslow continued, "and I'll go back and tell the boss. This is something we can settle between ourselves. Regardless of what happens, we still want to remain friends." Saslow then suggested that the employees themselves dis- cuss the situation during the lunch hour and give Saslow their "answer" after lunch.? "The whole long and short of it," Saslow concluded, "is that the boss does not want a union." 8 As Saslow had suggested, a group of employees did seek to meet with Saslow the same afternoon of Saslow's aforementioned meetings with the shipping em- ployees, but Saslow was unavailable. The next day, in accordance with Respondent Lubasch's instructions, Respondent discharged the 26 employees listed on Appendix A, the discharge notices stating that "We have reorganized our shipping and office facilities and notice is hereby given that your services are no longer required." A few days later at Respondent's premises at 1810 Broadway, Union Organizer Dicker discussed the discharges with Saslow; Saslow stated at the time, according to Dicker's undenied and otherwise credited testimony, that Respondent Lubasch does "nice things" for his employees and "therefore, he [Lubasch] doesn't have to have a union"; Saslow further told Dicker on this occasion that Lubasch was a "stubborn guy. He made up his mind and that's all" and that Lubasch "would never sign with the union, would never have anything to do with any union, no matter what the case was." 9 U Actually, only about five employees had joined the Union, but Lubasch apparently did not know this. v Cubas reasonably interpreted this to mean "whether we would go with the union or stay loyal to the boss " 8 Testifying that he had not seen Respondent Lubasch for at least a week before August 17, Saslow testified several days later that he, Mael, and Jack Lubasch had gone to Tannersville a day or two before August 17 to complain to Lubasch that some shipping employees had been slowing down and that he urged the employees upon his return from Tannersville that they should do their work and "not let their union activities interfere with their work " He denied telling the employees that Lubasch would close down because of union considerations ; when specifically questioned, however, he said he did not recall but he would not deny telling the employees that "there was no need to go outside of the fac- tory itself to a labor organization to help iron out these diffeiences " And when specifi- cally asked whether he had asked the employees to talk over the situation among them- selves and to report back to him, Saslow testified, "I don't deny it, but I don't recall it." Saslow also testified that he believed company records would show the amount of shipping in relation to his testimony about slipping employees slackening in their work ; Respond- ent introduced no such records. Both Mael and Jack Lubasch testified in Respondent's behalf, but neither was even questioned by Respondent in attempted corroboration of Saslow's testimony respecting Saslow's remarks to the shipping department employees. Salwitz, Cubas, and Maldonado impressed me as honest witnesses To the extent that conflicts exist between Saslow's testimony and that of the other three named individuals, the latter's testimony is credited and Saslow's testimony is not credited . Saslow's other testimony shows evasion and even self-contradiction ; based on his entire testimony and his demeanor as a witness I can hardly accept his alleged reason for his, Mael's, and Jack Lubasch's meeting with Respondent Lubasch. 9 Dicker told Saslow that the Union would not sit idly by in view of the discharges, and the Union began picketing Respondent's premises at 1810 Broadway on or about August 21, 1956. 340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondent asserts that it discharged the employees on August 17 10 because it moved its shipping and stockroom department to Saugerties , New York, for eco- nomic reasons. Respondent also claims that it had planned some such action at least since December 1954. I shall now attempt to relate some preceding and attending circumstances and some resulting conditions of this claimed , long planned reorganization of shipping and office facilities . I use the word "attempt" ad- visedly; for the General Counsel 's painstaking cross-examination of Respondent's principal witnesses , particularly Mael and Respondent Lubasch, demonstrated but could not always turn aside their evasion and dissimulation. Respondent Moves to Saugerties Respondent adduced testimony to the effect that it had long considered its premises at 1410 Broadway to be inadequate , asserting in this connection that such premises were too small for stockroom and shipping purposes and that congested traffic conditions in the area of 1810 Broadway make that location an unsatisfactory one for delivery and shipping operations . In the latter connection , Respondent also testified regarding the inconvenience of relying on overburdened elevator service between the street level and their premises on the 22d floor . Respondent's witnesses testified that, at a meeting held in or about December 1954 between Respondent Lubasch , Comptroller Mael and other company officials, it was definitely decided to move the shipping and stockroom departments from 1410 Broadway . Respondent Lubasch testified that he thereupon instructed Jack Lubasch to find premises "where we can be housed in one place" and Respondent Lubasch and Jack Lubasch testified , in effect , that Jack Lubasch thereafter made continuous efforts to this purpose. Respondent was a statutory tenant at 1810 Broadway in December 1954, its lease having expired there in or about January 1954; there was some question at the time that the State might repeal or otherwise change the then existing law to the effect of terminating such statutory tenancies , which would have left Respondent without a lease or any other right of tenancy at 1810 Broadway . Jerome D. Schloss is president of Queensdale Realty, Inc., the landlord of the building occupied by Respondent at 1410 Broadway . Schloss testified that Respondent enjoyed a "bar- gain" rental at 1810 Broadway as a statutory tenant; and Schloss testified that it was to the landlord's financial advantage to have a statutory tenant vacate a rent- controlled premises , such as Respondent had at 1810 Broadway , and that he (Schloss ) had been "very anxious" for a "long time" to have Respondent give up even a portion of the premises . Respondent witness, Nathan Fixelle, is a real-estate agent in the office of Mid Manhattan Management Corporation , the landlord's rental agents at 1810 Broadway . Fixelle testified that , in or about March or April 1954 , Fixelle first suggested to Respondent Lubasch that Lubasch should move his stockroom from 1810 Broadway because such move would be to the landlord's advantage; Fixelle testified that Lubasch then replied that he, Lubasch, would consider the suggestion . Testifying later, however , Fixelle this time stated that it was Lubasch who first mentioned moving the stockroom from 1810 Broadway; and this time , also contrary to his earlier testimony , Fixelle even testified that he could not recall that he had ever previously made such suggestion to Lubasch. Fixelle also testified that the only consideration mentioned by Lubasch for consid- ering moving the stockroom during such conversation was "inadequate space." In July 1955 Respondent executed a new lease for the 22d floor at an increased rental to terminate in January 1959. And, as previously mentioned , Respondent obtained additional basement space in the same buildingiunder a year's sublease beginning February 1956. Respondent claims and adduced testimony to the effect that it still sought other premises for its stockroom and shipping operations , despite the 1955 lease it signed for the 22d floor and the 1956 sublease for the basement space at 1810 Broadway, and one of the evidentiary items adduced by Respondent in support of this con- tention is its acquisition of a building in Tannersville , New Yorl{. Tannersville has a population of approximately 650 and is located in the Catskill Mountains resort area, about 115 miles north of New York City.li Lubasch entered into a contract in October 1955 for the purchase of a 3-story building in Tannersville, the so-called Lackey Building, and he acquired title to the property in April 1956. ii Respondent Lubasch testified that he discharged the employees when he did because they had been allegedly slowing down ( See footnotes 5 and 8 , supra ) U The Official Guide of the Railways (National Railway Publication Co , June 1957), of which I take official notice, does not show a railway station in Tannersville BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 341 Lubasch testified that he purchased the building for the express purpose of housing Respondent's stockroom and shipping facilities. Respondent never did move its stockroom to the Lackey Building; Lubasch's explanation is that, after purchasing the building, he learned it would be too costly to make repairs and other structural changes in such premises to make them suitable for stockroom and shipping pur- poses. The record shows that Respondent Lubasch has a summer home in Tanners- ville and that-even before purchasing the Lackey Building, he had established a retail outlet store for his then 17-year-old son in 1 of 3 stores in the street level of the building, the second floor is used and is apparently rented out as a family dwelling, Respondent Lubasch also testified that early in 1956 he advised Fixeile (the afore- mentioned associate of the landlord's rental agent at 1810 Broadway) that he was intending to move the stockroom and shipping department from 1810 Broadway and give up four-sevenths of Respondent's 22d floor premises occupied by such operations and that Respondent would have need to retain only the remaining por- tion of Respondent's 22d floor premises for office and showroom purposes. Lubasch testified that he then told Fixelle to see what kind of a sublease proposition Fixelle could obtain for the space Respondent would be vacating. Lubasch further testified that the effect of this early 1956 conversation with Fixelle was a "definite commit- ment" to vacate the stockroom space on the 22d floor by July 1, 1956, and he also testified that such oral "commitment" was "equivalent to a written notice." On the other hand, Respondent witness, Fixelle, testified that, after signing the aforemen- tioned lease in July 1955, the first discussion he had with Lubasch as to vacating the stockroom and shipping space did not occur until June 1956, Lubasch told Fixelle at that time, Fixelle testified, that Lubasch would vacate this portion of the 22d floor premises on or about January 1, 1957, and that Fixelle should find a subtenant. Fixelle also testified that he did nothing about the matter until Septem- ber or October 1956.12 It is recalled that on August 10, 1956, Respondent began transferring its mer- chandise from 1810 Broadway to the Lackey Building in Tannersville 13 and that after that date Respondent received no merchandise at 1810 Broadway from its con- tractors. On or about August 15 Respondent leased premises in Saugerties, New York, where it states it has now established the shipping and stockroom operations formerly carried on at 1810 Broadway. Although Respondent did not introduce the Saugerties lease in evidence, the record shows that the leasehold term is for only a 3-month period, automatically renewable in the absence of contrary notification. Saugerties is located about 100 miles north of New York City and about 15 miles. south of Tannersville and has an approximate population of 4,000.14 On or about September 1, 1956, 2 weeks after the discharges under consideration, Respondent also leased space for a 2-year term in Hoboken, New Jersey, across the river from New York City; Respondent used these Hoboken premises as a temporary shipping point, and it states that it discontinued such use long before expiration of the lease- hold arrangement. When Respondent established whatever operations it did set up in Hoboken and Saugerties, it called upon its executives and traveling salesmen to perform shipping and receiving and stockroom operations at both locations. Respondent also hired temporary shipping employees at Hoboken. Respondent's first payroll at Saugerties 12 I have elsewhere commented on Respondent Lubasch's credibility. Based on Fixelle's demeanor and testimony, I am also unable to rely on Fixelle's trustworthiness as a wit- ness ; he was, in my judgment, both evasive and untruthful. Fixelle appeared as a witness in this proceeding on January 23, 1957, on which occasion lie was ci oss-examined by the General Counsel concerning a certain alleged meeting lie testified to having had with Lubasch. It was important, and Fixelle understood the importance, at the time of his testimony to determine whether such conversation actually occurred and, if so, when it occurred. It was to the Respondent's advantage at the time to establish such conversation as having occurred as early as possible within the context of his testimony. Fixelle testified at one point that such alleged conversation occurred in October 1956 ; and then, when pressed on this matter, he finally admitted that lie did not know whether such alleged conversation took place in October 1956 or as recently as January 1957, the same month he was testifying i3 Respondent Lubasch called this Tannersville warehouse function, Mill Distributors, and he calls his son's store in that building, Mill Outlet Lubasch testified that he first sent merchandise for warehousing in Tannersville in July 1956 ; elsewhere lie testified that such activity began "anywhere from the 1st to the 15th [of August]." Saslow testified that he had not heard of any shipments to Mill Distributors before August 9. ii According to the Official Guide of the Railways (National Railway Publication Co., June 1957), one railway line runs Into Saugerties. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD was for the week ending August 25, on which date it had four new shipping'em- ployees; 15 the following week it had only one such employee on that payroll. However improvised were Respondent's shipping operations with the discharge of its shipping employees and the other events outlined above, the conduct of Re- spondent's business office was at least equally chaotic. Respondent Lubasch testified that the only change in the method of Respondent's total operations resulting from its "reorganization" was to separate sales and office functions from -its shipping and stockroom operations, and in this connection he also testified that Respondent still had the same office work to be performed. Comptroller Mael has charge of Re- spondent's general office work and advises Respondent Lubasch respecting financial and other aspects of Respondent's operations. Mael testified that he had always assumed that the bookkeeping, but not the sales, office would move with the stock- room and that he had known there would be problems in moving the bookkeeping office, including the hiring and breaking in of competent office employees. Mael nevertheless further stated that he had never discussed such problems with Lubasch before the move to Saugerties and that Respondent, before the move, had not even planned which particular office functions would be moved. Mael testified he had not even inquired before the move whether qualified office employees were available in Saugerties, and at one point he suggests he could not obtain any. As a matter of fact, Mael also testified that he had no prior knowledge of the Company's move to Saugerties and that such move came as "somewhat of a surprise." Substantial office functions have had to be foregone since the discharge of Respondent's office personnel, and necessary bookkeeping operations were not being performed. Respondent enlisted the services of executives' family members and friends to keep up a semblance of a business office; it has also been engaging office personnel on a temporary basis at 1810 Broadway from employment offices and other sources. All this, in order to perform some of the functions of Re- spondent's discharged personnel. Even Respondent concedes that since August 17 its business office has been conducted "much less efficiently" than before the discharges. Although Fixelle testified, as mentioned above, that the only reason Lubasch allegedly gave him for desiring to move the stockroom was that "the space was too small" at 1810 Broadway, Respondent now also asserts a financial consideration as well. Respondent thus claims in this connection that the cost of operating the shipping and stockroom department at 1810 Broadway had been rising steadily over the years and that it sought to remove these operations to a location where it would reduce such costs, including labor and transportation items. In support of such contention, Respondent introduced in evidence, and adduced testimony of Respond- ent Lubasch and Comptroller Mael in connection therewith, an analysis purportedly showing steadily increasing costs in maintaining the stockroom at 1810 Broadway as compared with a projection of comparatively lower operating costs for the stockroom at Saugerties. This analysis was prepared by Mael for purposes of this proceeding and after the instant complaint was issued. In the circumstances of this case. I feel it unnecessary to discuss the details of this analysis and Mael's and Lubasch's related testimony. Suffice it to say in this connection that the record makes abundantly clear that the analysis fails to portray or project the economic picture accurately or completely or even honestly. Several items are worth noting, while on the subject of Respondent's alleged economic justification for its "reorganization." Respondent's contractors paid delivery charges from their own premises to Respondent' stockroom at 1810 Broad- way, and such transportation cost was necessarily considered by the contractors in fixing the cost of their manufacturing service to Respondent; Respondent's cus- tomers also paid transportation costs on deliveries to them from 1810 Broadway, and this cost was also obviously considered by them in making their purchases; nevertheless, Mael and Lubasch testified in effect that they did not even consider, before moving to Saugerties, what financial impact the changed location might have on either their customers or contractors. Indeed, Lubasch testified that his cus- tomers have told him that they liked the change of the shipping department from New York City to Saugerties and that they even have complimented him because their transportation costs are lower from the new site (he was unable to identify even one such happy customer); Mael, on the other hand, testified in effect that some customers have complained that the changed shipping location has increased 1a Respondent's witnesses, particularly Respondent Lubasch, gave a variety of dates as to when Respondent had its first new employees in Saugerties BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 343 their shipping costs and that Respondent has, in fact, been impelled to credit these customers with the amount of such increase. Lubasch also testified that the con- tractors' charges to Respondent were the same for merchandise delivered at Sauger- ties as at 1810 Broadway', on the other hand, an executive of Class Knit testified that this matter of increased shipping costs to Saugerties was even then under nego- tiation. Merchandise from Lubasch's Puerto Rico plant is shipped to New York City by water transportation, as it was before, and then from New York City to Saugerties; Lubasch nevertheless also testified that he did not know whether the cost of transporting such merchandise were greater to Saugerties than to 1810 Broadway in New York City and he also testified that he had not even considered this matter before moving the stockroom to Saugerties. Mael, who testified to having discussed with Lubasch the financial and other aspects of moving the ship- ping department from 1810 Broadway, testified that he never had discussed with Lubasch the convenience or inconvenience to customers of having shipments made from Saugerties; he also testified that they had never discussed the convenience or inconvenience of keeping in touch with Respondent's New York City contractors from Saugerties; and he further testified that they never even had discussed the operational difficulties of having the sales office and stockroom 100 miles from one another. Moreover, and apart from Lubasch's mentioned testimony that he decided to move on August 17 because of Saslow's complaint that employees were slowing down, the record does not contain any economic explanation why Respondent, even assuming it desired to move its shipping and stockroom department from 1810 Broadway, would even consider such change at the very peak of its fall shipping season rather than after the season, particularly when Respondent was still required to pay its rental on the space at 1810 Broadway occupied by the stockroom. As a matter of fact, Respondent continued to pay such full rental until January 30, 1957, on which date Respondent executed new instruments with the landlord at 1810 Broadway; under these instruments, Respondent in effect released the stockroom premises to the landlord and took back a lease for approximately three-sevenths of the 22d floor premises for its showroom and sales office Respondent never offered employment at either Hoboken or Saugerties to any of its discharged employees, before or after their discharge; when Respondent began operating in Saugerties it advertised for employees in a local paper there. Respond- ent Lubasch testified on December 14, 1956, that he had not asked any of the discharged employees whether they wanted to work at Hoboken or Saugerties because, so he testified, "we had no opportunity to." Three weeks later in the proceeding, Lubasch testified that he and Sales Manager Saslow had "casually" discussed the matter before signing the Saugerties lease and that by the time the lease was signed it had been decided not to employ the New York City employees in Saugerties because both he and Saslow agreed at the time that "transportation and commutation" made it "impractical to ask or impose on any of the New York residents." 16 Then, when Lubasch was later asked on direct examination why he did not offer employment in Saugerties to the New York City employees, Luhasch this time testified that "there are many reasons." Lubasch thereupon testified that housing in Saugerties was "scarce" and "too expensive for the employees, or for anyone"; that there was "ample" available help to be had in Saugerties and that it is "good business" to employ local people; that wage rates are lower in Saugerties than the wages he had been paying his New York City employees; and that hous- ing would present still another problem because about 50 percent of Respondent's New York City employees are "colored people" and Saugerties is not a "colored community" and that "there would be a reluctance to give them housing." Conclusions The testimony and other evidence in this record could be set forth in much greater detail than appears above; to do so, however, would only buttress the conclusion already inescapable, namely, that Respondent discharged its employees on August 17, 1956, in order to avoid having any dealings with the Union which was then engaged in organizing Respondent's employees. Rather than show the discharges to be incidental to the claimed 17 Saugerties move, I believe the record 1e Saslow testified that not until the very day of the discharges did he know a "single thing" about the fact that there might be discharges. 17I use the word "claimed" advisedly; for in the circumstances appearing here, I have serious doubt that Respondent intends to keep its shipping department in Saugerties This is so despite the fact that Respondent has released the stockroom portion of its premises at 1810 Broadway. There is considerable basis for the General Counsel's contention that Saugerties is a hideaway, rather than a runaway, location . I need not decide this specific 344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to demonstrate beyond any possible question that such move to Saugerties was made solely for the purpose of lending color of pretext to the discharges. Not only do the events immediately preceding the discharges, including Saslow's meetings with the shipping employees which meetings Mael and Jack Lubasch also attended, con- stitute practically conclusive proof of Respondent's discriminatory motivation, but the evidence as to Respondent's allegedly economic explanation also lays bare the spuriousness of Respondent's contentions. The facts and circumstances hardly portray a "reorganization," long in planning and well considered, as Respondent asserts; instead they show a hasty improvisation, completely bereft of normal busi- ness considerations. Saslow's explanation to Dicker after the discharges could be the only possible reason for deliberately creating such a makeshift situation as happened here, namely, that Lubasch was a "stubborn guy ... [who] would never have anything to do with any union, no matter what the case was." I consider further analysis of this case to be wholly unnecessary. Upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents Bermuda and Lubasch have violated Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act by discriminatorily discharging the employees set forth on Appendix A. 2. Respondent Bermuda and Lubasch have further violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by interrogating employees concerning membership in and other activi- ties on behalf of the Union, by threatening them with loss of employment for union membership and because of the Union's organizing campaign, and by promising and then granting wage increases to employees for the purpose of inducing them to refrain from such membership and activities. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.is III. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act and to restore insofar as possible the status quo existing prior to the commission of the unfair labor practices. I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to offer reinstatement to all employees in Appendix A to their former or to substantially equivalent employ- ment. Chase National Bank of the City of New York etc., 65 NLRB 827. Such reinstatement will be without prejudice to the employees' seniority and other rights and privileges and Respondent will be required to dismiss all new employees, temporary or otherwise, hired since August 17, 1956, or in contemplation of Re- spondent's "reorganization" at that time, if such dismissals are necessary to pro- vide employment for the employees in Appendix A. Where Respondent has trans- ferred the positions of any of these employees to Saugerties or elsewhere outside New York City, Respondent will then be required to offer them employment at such other locations. However, as I do not regard employment of New York City residents in Saugerties, New York, to be substantially equivalent to otherwise similar employment in New York City, I also do not accept tendered employment at Saugerties as completely satisfying Respondent's obligations to its discriminatorily discharged employees. Cf. Corning Glass Works v. N. L. R. B, 129 F. 2d 967 (on contempt) (C. A. 2); N. L. R. B. v. Armour & Co., 154 F. 2d 570 (C. A. 10). Accordingly the employees may, without resulting back-pay or other penalty to themselves, refuse offers of employment from Respondent in Saugerties or else- where outside New York City. Should any employees be offered and then refuse employment from Respondent outside New York City, Respondent shall be re- quired to maintain a preferential hiring list comprised of such employees and Re- spondent shall be required to offer reinstatement to them in the event Respondent reestablishes their positions in New York City. point, however, as it does not affect the merits of the case and is presently relevant only in fashioning an appropriate remedy. 38 The activities of the Respondent set forth in section II, above, occurring in connec• tion with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substan- tial ' relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION 345 I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to pay employees the ex- penses entailed in moving their families and household effects in the event any of the employees choose to accept employment from Respondent outside New York City. I shall further recommend that Respondent be required to make whole all em- ployees in Appendix A by paying them a sum of money equal to the amount that he or she would normally have earned as wages, including pension payments, from August 17, 1956, until the offer of reinstatement , less net interim earn-' ings during such period . As to any employees who may refuse Respondent's offer of employment outside New York City, I shall also recommend that Respondent be required to continue paying them for loss of earnings until such time after such offer as the employees obtain substantially equivalent employment with other em- ployers or until Respondent offers them their former or substantially equivalent positions in New York City.19 All back-pay provisions are to be administered in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289. I shall also recommend that the Board retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of effectuating the terms of this Recommended Order. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 19 This does not mean, of course, that the employees may sit Idly by awaiting such offers. The normal requirement of mitigation of back pay applies, as in any other case. APPENDIX A John Anglisano Josephine Keating Esther Rosenfield Sybil Birnbaum Ida Lowe Al Salwitz Corinne Braux Sylvia Maldonado Mildred Singer Adele Bruno Ina Manchenso Irma Temin Holly Clarke Irving Michaels Hazel Vance Felipe Cubas Ruth Moskowitz Margaret Walsh Margo Daye Andre Regal Sally Werstein Leah Greenberg Gabriel Regal Thomas Young Lillian Harlick Ivan Rocke APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Re- lations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT discourage membership in Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, District 65, or in any other -labor organization of our employees , by discriminatorily discharging any of our employees , or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with discharge or other reprisals be- cause of union activities. WE WILL NOT promise or grant wage increases for the purpose of inducing employees to refrain from union activities. WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning union membership and activities , in a manner constituting interference , restraint ,- or coercion in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with , restrain , or coerce our em- ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization , to form labor organiza- tions, to join or assist the aforementioned District 65 or any other labor organiza- tion , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL offer to all employees discharged on August 17, 1956 , immediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions , without 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered because of the dis- crimination against them. BERMUDA KNITWEAR CORPORATION, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM J LUBASCH, President. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced , or covered by any other material. Linton-Summit Coal Company, Inc. and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 35-CA-729. April 9,1958 DECISION AND ORDER On July 29, 1957, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleged such unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. These rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.2 ORDER Upon the entire record and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela- 1 The Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record, exceptions , and brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 2 The Respondent contends that in weighing conflicting evidence and in drawing in- ferences and conclusions from the evidence , the Trial Examiner demonstrated his bias and prejudice against the Respondent . While it appears that the Trial Examiner in most instances made credibility determinations in favor of the witnesses for the General Counsel, we note that even "total rejection of an opposed view cannot of itself impugn the integrity of a trier of fact " N. L. R. B. v. Pittsburgh S S. Company , 337 U. S. 656 . In any event, we have independently reviewed the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings, his inferences and conclusions from evidence , and perceive no basis for finding that there was bias or prejudice on his part . Moreover , as we find none of the Trial Examiner 's credibility find- 120 NLRB No. 56.